MCP Session Saver

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads and displays content, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires permissions, how it handles errors (e.g., invalid file paths), or the format of the displayed content. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and usage guidelines, but includes redundant trigger words ('触发词：打开、读取、查看、显示会话/对话内容/详情') that repeat earlier examples. It could be more concise by eliminating this repetition while maintaining clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or output format, which are important for a read operation. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'file_path' documented as '会话文件的完整路径(可从 list_sessions 结果中获取)' (complete path to session file, obtainable from list_sessions results). The description doesn't add meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter usage or constraints further. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('读取并显示' meaning 'read and display') and resource ('指定会话的完整内容' meaning 'complete content of specified session'), distinguishing it from siblings like delete_session or list_sessions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from search_sessions in terms of scope or output format.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool ('当用户说...时调用' meaning 'call when user says...'), listing example trigger phrases like '打开这个会话' (open this session) and '查看会话内容' (view session content). It implies usage for retrieving full session content but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like search_sessions for filtered results.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.